'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[Clare73]

The NT does not establish our personal responsibility for the sin into which we are BORN. You have yet to produce even ONE passage

You say there was no law to transgress from Adam to Moses. Then may I ask how is Adam guilty if no law existed at the time of Adam? And if Adam was not guilty, how is any of his guilt passed down to other generations?

All your questions and objections here have already been addressed.

Pay attention.

And you already have enough on your plate that you have not addressed:

Ro 3:25-26, [post=62739653]here[/post],
Ro 5:12-21, [post=62768917]here[/post], and
Ro 6:1-4, [post=62762036]here[/post].

So stop playing diversion and distraction, and present explanations of the above that are consistent with the texts.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Your authority is your own interpretation of the texts. You may believe that is what Paul meant but that doesn't carry any weight. The fact that Penal Substitution "CAN'T" be traced back any further than the Reformation shows us that it had it's origins in the Reformation. No matter what you believe about what Paul said, it doesn't change the fact that you doctrine only goes back to the Reformation.

The pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This has no bearing on the fact that the doctrine cannot be found in the church before the 1500's

Computers can't be found before the 20th century, I guess they're not true either. Apples and oranges? Maybe, but I've already addressed your objection, that you continue the same rhetoric, only demonstrates an unwillingness to engage or be corrected or even to acknowledge that anyone other than you just might have a point.

You sir do not belong to the early Church, and what you understand about the early Church is your interpretation of their interpretation. Further you come across as believing the early Church to be just as inspired if not more inspired than the Apostles themselves!

What is first is true.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and his earthly arrival came after the Prophets.

The Apostles came before the early Church. If Penal Substitution is taught by Paul, it really does not matter whether it was taught by the early Church or not. Period.

Are you admitting that it contradicts Scripture?

Obviously not.

 

[cygnusx1]

Imputed guilt? The Scriptures refute that idea.

That's just it , they don't . ARE you a SDA butch ?

 

[Butch5]

The pot calling the kettle black.

Your welcome to try to trace the doctrine back to the apostles also.

 

[Butch5]

That's just it , they don't . ARE you a SDA butch ?

Ezekiel does.

 

[Butch5]

Computers can't be found before the 20th century, I guess they're not true either. Apples and oranges? Maybe, but I've already addressed your objection, that you continue the same rhetoric, only demonstrates an unwillingness to engage or be corrected or even to acknowledge that anyone other than you just might have a point.

You sir do not belong to the early Church, and what you understand about the early Church is your interpretation of their interpretation. Further you come across as believing the early Church to be just as inspired if not more inspired than the Apostles themselves!

First of all, I've not quoted anything. I've simply made an observation that none of those holding your view have attempted to deal with. Instead have statement like those above.

You can't get around the fact that Penal substitution doesn't appear until 1500 years after Christ. If Paul and apostles taught Penal Substitution then we'd see it in church history, we don't. If they did teach Penal Substitution and we don't see it in church history there is a problem. That would mean that the apostles were not able to do what Jesus sent them to do.

We see men like, Luther, Calvin, Darby, etc. whose teachings have lasted hundreds of years. Are you willing to admit that the apostles (inspired) were not able to establish their teachings? That is what you're left with.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and his earthly arrival came after the Prophets.

The Apostles came before the early Church. If Penal Substitution is taught by Paul, it really does not matter whether it was taught by the early Church or not. Period.

It matters greatly. If can't be found among the earliest Christians we can conclude one of two things, either, the apostles didn't teach it or the apostles weren't able to establish their teachings. I'm going with they didn't teach it, which one are going with?

 

[Butch5]

I am interested in what Scripture purports.

I'm not interested in allegorical interpretation of it, which was common at one point in the church.

4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. (Psa 90:4 KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2Pe 3:8 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

Until you demonstrate otherwise from the text, it carries more weight than your non-demonstration.

I've addressed these in the past. You've rejected anything that doesn't agree with you preconceptions.

And what is Paul in Ro 3:25-26, [post=62647466]here[/post], chopped liver?

Again, this is our unbridgeable chasm.
Historical theology is your authority.
The word of God (2Ti 3:1) is my authority.

You assume he's teaching it. I've already given you an alternative understanding. It seems that you prefer you interpretation over any thing else. Even when it contradicts the evidence.

[/quote]According to you, penal substitution does not appear in historical theology until 1600 AD.

According to the NT, penal substitution appears in Scripture in the first century AD.[/quote]

Are willing to admit that the apostles failed to establish their teachings?

 

[bottomofsandal]

What kind of judge would knowingly sentence an innocent person to death? It is only the law of the unmerciful that immutably applies punishment for every crime. If a person truly repents, he should be forgiven. This is the Law of God (Luke 17:4; Mat.6:14-15). To punish Jesus in our place would require the Father to acquit the guilty and condemn the Innocent—to do that which He hates (Prov.17:15). It would require God acting contrary to His stated desire to forgive and bestow life on the repentant (Ezek.18:30-32). What hardness of heart can be instilled into the mind by the teaching that God does not remove punishment when one repents, but merely transfers it? The doctrine of penal substitution asks us to believe that the Father declared His own Son guilty of sin and worthy of death in agreement with His Son’s false accusers. No. The law of God releases the repentant from punishment—not by transferring it to someone else, but through the godly act of forgiveness.

Ok, who would like to throw the first stone? : )

This appears to have degenerated into yet another...

Where are the responses to questions posed in the OP ? What appears to be lost in all the quibbling over how much guilt or the extent and vailidity of imputed guilty is the fact The Son of God sacrificed Himself in order that we would not be condemned because of our sins, but have eternal life. It obviously meant something to God The Father. The death of Christ is almost spoken of with callousness and indifference in an attempt to prove/disprove a position.


The Just for the unjust to bring us to God.

God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us.

The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

 

[bottomofsandal]

All your questions and objections here have already been addressed.

Pay attention.

And you already have enough on your plate that you have not addressed:

Ro 3:25-26, [post=62739653]here[/post],
Ro 5:12-21, [post=62768917]here[/post], and
Ro 6:1-4, [post=62762036]here[/post].

So stop playing diversion and distraction, and present explanations of the above that are consistent with the texts.

Here is something I thought you might enjoy !
Keep up the labor of love !


'They (liberal preachers) speak with disgust of those who believe ‘that the blood of our Lord, shed in substitutionary death, placates an alienated deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner. Against the doctrine of the cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling on human hearts.”

(J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1923, p.120.)

 

[cygnusx1]

Ezekiel does.

Ezekiel isn't the only prophet in scripture , try not to be ruled by the simple selective approach , try the holistic approach to doctrine , the systematic approach .

You know the Russelites ? They deny the trinity and they even use scripture , they only quote texts that support their view that Jesus is not God , they ignore or refuse to play fair with texts that prove Jesus is Divine in scripture , if you debate them they will have a scripture for every scripture you use , and guess what , you will get nowhere , you will just give up because they never appreciate the contrary view found in scripture , they have their view and nothing will change it .

Are you SDA ?

 

[bling]

No it isn't , hundreds of thousands of Protestants agree with Clare , instead of the cliched put down attempt to deal the issue !

I have without a responce from Clare, but if you feel she is doing what you agree with than please address the questions I asked her:

Clare said the following in quotes addressing questions she created:

However, since you choose not to reckon with Ro 3:25-26, because you are unable to present a consistent and Bilblical explanation of it which can be reconciled to your theory of atonement, I will do so.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.


He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

For :1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

Clare says:-----Penalty on their sin was "passed over," their sin was left unpunished. (penal)

Does the “sin” need to be punished or does the sinner need to be punished?

Where all sinners not punished or just some sinners where not punished and if only some who where they?

Yes! in the past before Christ went to the cross: punishment of the sinner for intentional sins that he/she repented of and God forgave were did not receive just punishment.

For: 2) The "what passed over" (penalty) consisted precisely of?
Clare said: -----Eternal punishment due on their sin.

Did Christ suffer for eternity?

How can the punishment be “due on their sins” and not due them?

In the OT Lev. 5 there was atonement and forgiveness for unintentional sins, so why did these sins not have eternal punishment?

People that go to hell do not have “eternal life” and will be burned up (annihilated) eventually. “Forever” does not always mean eternal, but can mean unquenchable or for an age.

For: 3) How did the "what passed over" (penalty) demonstrate God's justice?

Clare said: -----Justice requires a penalty for law breaking.

Does “justice” require just any penalty to anything or person, or does just require the punishment of the guilty party for their transgressions?

For: 4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?
Clare said: -----The law-breaking of all those who believe in his propitiation for their sin (of breaking God's laws). (atonement)

Clare asks “for what” when it is not “for what” but “for whom”?

Christ is not going to the cross for some intangible like “the breaking of the law”, but is going for all those that will put their trust in what he has done.

For: 5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?
Clare says: -----He paid the penalty due for their law-breaking. (subsitution)

Here Clare is introducing the idea of “substitution” which is not stayed as such in scripture. Just because Christ did it for sinners does not mean Christ did it instead of sinners. Parents do a lot for their children but it is not done as substitute for the children themselves doing it.


This is the real heart of the matter: Christ and God are painfully sacrificially allowing “wicked people” to torture, humiliate and murder Christ, so those that believe what He did can experience Acts 2:37, the worst possible thing on earth they could experience without being physically damaged or destroyed (a death blow to their heart). This is the believer’s fair/just punishment for their transgressions equivalent to the punishment those that refuse to accept what Christ did for them will experience with hell.

For 6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

Clare said: -----The forgiveness of sin, purchased by Jesus' sacrifice of propitiation paying my penalty, is applied to me only by faith

Clare is suggesting our most wonderful Father had to be “paid off” with Christ’s torturous death in order to forgive His children?

Where is forgiveness mentioned in this passage and why is it not the prominent theism of the passage if as is being suggested is reason for the atonement?

How does this show: “faith is needed for forgiveness”? (Faith is needed but this explanation is not showing “why”).


Anyone can see if you do not believe Christ went to the cross as the result of your sins, you will not feel a death blow to your heart (experience punishment for your transgression), so believing is required for the punishment of the sinner (atonement) to take place.

 

[bling]

I don't believe the wheel needs to be re-invented. Neither do I believe in "new" theology, especially when or where it dismisses two thousand or so years of biblical interpretation. Just sayin'!

The reason we still have several “theories” that do not pass peer review is because none are correct. Do you believe and have you experienced the Holy Spirit’s guidance to the truth?

 

[bling]

Here is something I thought you might enjoy !
Keep up the labor of love !


'They (liberal preachers) speak with disgust of those who believe ‘that the blood of our Lord, shed in substitutionary death, placates an alienated deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner. Against the doctrine of the cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling on human hearts.”

(J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1923, p.120.)

What are those saying about God’s blood thirsty behavior with the idea: “God had Christ (an innocent being) tortured, humiliated and murdered for God to be able to forgive the guilty party”,?

 

[bottomofsandal]

Clare is suggesting our most wonderful Father had to be “paid off” with Christ’s torturous death in order to forgive His children?

Not really. God said what He was going to do and then He did it.


I suppose God could just "choose" (as some say) to forgive without all the violence that is so repulsive to the sensitive folks, but God ordained a Sacrificial system where the sin penalty required death.


God did a great and mighty redemptive work at the cross, and man wants to complain about the way in which it was carried out ?

 

[bottomofsandal]

What are those saying about God’s blood thirsty behavior with the idea: “God had Christ (an innocent being) tortured, humiliated and murdered for God to be able to forgive the guilty party”,?

1 Corinthians 15:13-17

New King James Version (NKJV)

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

 

[bling]

1 Corinthians 15:13-17

New King James Version (NKJV)

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

This does not address my question at all.

I was talking only about the cruel horrible murder of Christ and not about his resurrection. Everything said in 1 Cor. 15: 13-17 could still be said if Christ just died suddenly of a stroke.

 

[bling]

Not really. God said what He was going to do and then He did it.

So it is God’s fault for not saying Christ would suddenly die of a stroke?

I suppose God could just "choose" (as some say) to forgive without all the violence that is so repulsive to the sensitive folks, but God ordained a Sacrificial system where the sin penalty required death.

You say: “so repulsive to the sensitive folks”, so why did you not feel a debilitating sorrow when you came to realize your sins cause the worst thing that could ever happen on earth? Why did you not feel like those in Acts 2: 37 (having a death blow felt to your heart)?

God did a great and mighty redemptive work at the cross, and man wants to complain about the way in which it was carried out ?

This was the only way to carry it out! If there had been “another way” which Jesus asked for God would have used it. How much do you empathize with Jesus and God over their having to do this for you?

 

[Clare73]

I am interested in what Scripture purports.

I'm not interested in allegorical interpretation of it, which was common at one point in the church.

4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. (Psa 90:4 KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2Pe 3:8 KJV)

Sorry about your perception and understanding of Scripture.

Note the grammatical usage of "as."

Those Scriptures are statements of timelessness, not statements giving the nature of time in timelessness.
They are showing there is no comparison between time and timelessness.

The Father does not live in time.
Therefore, there is no measurement into days or years of the timelessness in which he dwells.
That is the purport of those texts.

However, creation took place in time.
The creation account is given in the terms of earthly time, six days.

Not to mention those texts have nothing to do with the creation account.

There is no basis for the fanciful notion that "day" in Ge 2:17 is actually 1,000 years.
Timelessness cannot be stated in terms of time.